SUDHA versus PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 22-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 289 
SUDHA 
v. 
PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS 
(Civil Appeal No. 10267 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 22, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
. 
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950: 
A 
B 
Article 136 - Appeal against order of High Court c 
approving draft bye-laws of the Society of Madras High Court 
Advocates' Association during pendency of suits for removal 
of the President and the Secretary of the Association -
Supreme Court on consensus of parties directed a General 
Body Meeting to be convened for approving amendment to 
D 
the bye-laws - Held: Supreme Court in exercise of its power 
under Article 136 would not be justified in interfering with 
internal matter of a Bar Association - However, on consensus 
of parties directions were given to convene General Body 
meeting of the members of Association to consider proposed 
E 
amendments in the bye-laws - The resolution passed in the 
meeting amending the bye-laws is perfectly legal and is 
upheld. 
Bar Association: 
Membership - Renewal - Right to vote and right to 
contest election - Madras High Court Advocates' Association 
- Bye-laws - Prescribing minimum years of practice and entry 
F 
fee etc: - HELD: Minimum years of practice to be entitled to 
vote and to contest election of the Association, the provisions G 
prescribing entry fee, yearly subscription, payment for revival 
of membership and deposits for contesting elections cannot 
be regarded as illegal or arbitrary. 
BAR AssociATION - Election - Held: Legal profession is a 
289 
H 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20101 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A solemn and serious occupation - A lawyer has to conduct 
himself as a model for others both in his professional life and 
his private /public life as a/so while exercising vote in an 
election of office bearers of the Association - Advocates -
B 
Legal ethics. 
Societies: 
General Body Meeting of Madras High Court Advocates 
Association - Resolution put to vote by show of hands - Held: 
The device adopted by Teller Committee cannot be said to 
C be arbitrary - Advocates. 
Suits were filed in 2005 before the High Court for 
removal of the President and the Secretary of the Madras 
High Court Advocates' Association, for rendition of 
o accounts and to restrain the said office bearers from 
taking any action pursuant to the declaration of the 
election programme. The Secretary of the Association 
also filed a civil suit seeking to restrain the defendants 
named therein from interfering with his functioning as 
E Secretary during his tenure which was to last till April 
2006. As the suits remained pending, pursuant to the 
applications filed in the suits, elections for the office 
bearers of the Association were held under the directions 
of the High Court. The High Court also constituted three 
committees: (I) to prepare list of members of the 
F Association eligible to vote; (ii) to frame/amend bye-laws 
of the Association and (iii) to conduct the election. 
Ultimately, the High Court, by its judgment dated 6.4.2010 
approved the draft bye-laws qf/ the Society. 
G 
The appellant, filed the instant appeal by way of 
special leave with a petition seeking permission to file the 
special leave petition, as she was not a party before the 
High Court. During the course of hearing of the appeal 
on 03.08.2010, on consensus of the parties, the Supreme 
H Court ordered that the proposed amendment of the bye-
SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 291 
laws be approved in the extra-ordinary meeting of the A 
General Body to be held on 7.9.2010. The meeting was 
duly held under the supervision of the Teller Committee 
on the notified date and the resolution adopting the new 
bye-laws was passed by a majority of more than 90% of 
the members present by raising hands. 
B 
It was contended for the appellant that the High Court 
had no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal mattes of 
the Association and, therefore, the directions given and/ 
or the approval granted to amend the bye-laws should be 
set aside; that the resolution passed on 7.9.2010 should C 
be set aside/modified, as proper audience was not given 
to members of the Association and the resolution passed 
by show of hands, instead of a secret ballot, was illegal; 
that clause 12 of the amended bye-laws prescribing 
minimum period of three years to become eligible to D 
contest election and two years to become eligible to cast 
vote was illegal; that clause 10 of the amended bye-laws 
prescribing

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.